Evidence-bounded agent reputation assessment with confidence, coverage, provenance limitations and a signed receipt; 0.005 USDC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signals | No | ||
| subject | Yes | ||
| evidence | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "evidence": [],
+ "signals": {
+ "endpoint_reachable": true,
+ "identity_registered": true,
+ "successful_settlements": 4
+ },
+ "subject": {
+ "erc8004_agent_id": 86081,
+ "wallet": "0x..."
+ }
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral traits: results are bounded by supplied evidence, and there are confidence/coverage/provenance limitations plus a signed receipt. It does not state permissions, side effects, or whether the receipt is on-chain. Adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and enumerating the outputs. It is efficient, though the price is tacked on without saying when it is charged.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There are three nested parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and a nested input structure. The description omits parameter semantics, invocation context, and output details present in the output schema. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but the input-side gaps are large.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it never mentions subject, signals, or evidence. The example reveals sample fields, but their semantics and the maxItems=32 evidence cap are unexplained. The gap is significant.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: an evidence-bounded reputation assessment of an agent, plus the outputs (confidence, coverage, provenance limitations, signed receipt). It is distinguishable from siblings like counterparty_risk_preflight, but it does not explicitly name or contrast against them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-sibling guidance. The agent must infer its place among many preflight/evidence tools from the one-line description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.